W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: ACTION-422: Look at new d-entailment text

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 11:17:52 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=Ao+qF3eZSA7JMOUSc8d=VJu4XwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Perry <matthew.perry@oracle.com>, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Cc: W3C SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Yes, Oracle seems to assume version 1.1 of the spec, which I also much
prefer since the older 1.0 version is IMO even contradictory regarding
the canonical representation. Since 1.1 is not yet a recommendation,
using it causes issues if we were to go to REC earlier then they do.
This happend for OWL 2 and OWL 2 specs have to be republished when the
1.1 version for the datatypes gets REC status as I understand it.
Their schedule suggests that they go to LC this month, which should
align with our schedule, so I hope this won' be an issue.

Could we put this on today's agenda, i.e., is the use of
XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 2: Datatypes
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/
instead of
XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/
ok?

Birte

On 4 April 2011 22:04, Matthew Perry <matthew.perry@oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi Birte,
>
> The new text looks good to me. I guess the only issue is canonicalization of
> integers, etc., as discussed in the email thread with Andy and Bijan:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011JanMar/0556.html.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283520
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 10:18:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT